I was curious if our China knowledgeable folks thought this is an accurate article. It’s seems so utterly absurd, I have trouble believing it is standard practice.
Sounds probable.
China is historically a very hierarchal society that understands the world in terms of human social networks. Deeply embedded in this is a notion that is translated as “responsibility.” Most actions have an ultimate source of “responsibility,” and the line of responsibility is rarely direct. For example, if I had gotten hurt or in trouble when I taught in China, the blame would have fallen on the dean of the English department- a man I only saw a couple of times and who had nothing to do with my daily life. Seems random, but through the complicated social networks, that’s how it worked.
As with a lot of seemingly unintuitive social systems, I’d guess its something that worked in some situations, but probably needs some time to adapt to modern life in big somewhat anonymous cities.
The part that I don’t get- it wasn’t explained, is how the boys were liable?
I mean, would they have been more or less liable had they just shrugged their shoulders and let the girls drown? Or is it somehow considered their responsibility either way, and they were just screwed by fate?
Not fined, it seems more accurate to say that the two men are victims of extortion by the girl’s families.
" The person in charge at Lianhua Lake Police Station also said that Wu already tried his very best to save the two girls when they were drowning, so he will not be held responsible. Right now, the police are still investigating this case. The family members of the two girls say the two men are definitely responsible. Through police negotiations, the two parties have reached a preliminary agreement where the two men will each give 50,000 yuan as compensation, but the agreement has yet to be fulfilled…"
The situation seems to be getting worse for the two boys. 500,000RMB equals about US$82,000:
“When two teenage girls got into trouble swimming in a lake in Dazhou, their companion, a boy called Wu Bo, tried to save them himself but had to make the tough decision to leave them to go find help. Both girls drowned and now the families are demanding 500,000 yuan in compensation. They, along with a minority of netizens, are holding Wu Bo accountable for not saving his friends. A huge debate has ensued online around whether or not Wu Bo had a legal or moral duty to save the girls.”
“The victims’ families, however, are more keen to play the blame game. They insist that both boys (including the one who left to go to the toilet when the accident unfolded) are accountable and insist on making them pay, literally, demanding 500,000 yuan from each boy.”
The families can demand whatever they want. The question is whether their demands have any legal basis.
How is it different from the US?
There are any number of notorious cases where a Good Samaritan was sued for incompetence here in the US, and in my profession (emergency medicine) it’s common to have discussions about the potential ramifications of trying to help, since the standard we are held to is so much higher than a bystander standard.
The tort attorneys who participate in these sorts of fiascos don’t really care about absurdity. The only standard is whether or not they can collect for a litigious client.
For further reading on the issue here in the US (from a medical field opinion): Here and here
From the first cite:
“The court has sent a signal to the people of California: don’t get involved. If someone’s drowning, don’t jump in the lake and save them. If someone’s trapped in a car that’s about to explode, sit there and watch the show. Just make a phone call, and who cares that it might be several minutes before an EMS team can make it to the scene? If you sit on your hands, no one can sue you for all you’re worth.”